Mithun Banerjee v. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc.
Mithun Banerjee v. Nationwide Recovery Service, Inc.
Opinion
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-2323
MITHUN BANERJEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. NATIONWIDE RECOVERY SERVICE, INC., Resident Agent: Cogency Global Inc., Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paula Xinis, District Judge. (8:20-cv-02751-PX)
Submitted: September 28, 2023 Decided: October 2, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, THACKER, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mithun Banerjee, Appellant Pro Se. Bradley Todd Canter, LAW OFFICES OF RONALD S. CANTER, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-2323 Doc: 40 Filed: 10/02/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM: Mithun Banerjee appeals the district court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in his civil action alleging violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1681 to 1681x. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. In addition to his challenge to the district court’s grant of summary judgment, Banerjee challenges the district court judge’s refusal to recuse herself. We review a district court judge’s recusal decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 229 (4th Cir. 2017). Here, Banjeree’s asserted grounds for recusal amounted to mere dissatisfaction with the district court’s unfavorable rulings, which is not a sufficient ground for recusal. See Belue v. Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid bases for bias or partiality motion). The district court judge therefore did not abuse her discretion in declining Banjeree’s request for recusal. Accordingly, we deny Banerjee’s motion to appoint counsel and affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.